AuthorTopic: More and other criteria to weigh states with (Read 135767 times)

Here is information on sodomy laws in different states. This is a measure of how open a state is to alternative sexuality and gender issues, important to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed, and sadomasochistic people.

Based on a first quick look, it seems that the states that are being considered all have repealed these laws, except for Idaho. (Also North Dakota doesn't seem to be listed for some reason.)

2. In regard to the NEA, here I think you've identified what will likely be one of the top three sources of opposition to us, if not THE top. The NEA is a well-organized, very vocal, and very effective special interest group. If we disclose plans to privatize public schools, we'll effectively be starting a war, the severity of which will probably amaze us in the long run.

One of the things that I have thought for awhile is that we are not going to be able to take on the task of complete privatization of public schools right away. Perhaps a slower, subtler approach would be more feasible. We can begin by removing barriers to homeschooling and easing regulations regarding the foundation of private schools. The teachers union will find it difficult to rally large numbers of voters against a parents right to choose private education. They are not even terribly successful in their complaints against homeschooling, which is gaining in numbers and respectability across the nation as a viable alternative to public education by Christian and secular families alike. As alternate programs and schools gain in popularity and are proven successful, more parents will withdraw their children from public schools, which will result in teachers (who wish to remain employed) to seek employment opportunities in non-public schools (which frequently offer a better working environment and smaller class sizes), and gradually the unionâ€™s strength can be overcome.

Meg

Logged

"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support. And one certain proof that a goverment is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will." (Lysander Spooner, 1867)

As alternate programs and schools gain in popularity and are proven successful, more parents will withdraw their children from public schools, which will result in teachers (who wish to remain employed) to seek employment opportunities in non-public schools (which frequently offer a better working environment and smaller class sizes), and gradually the union&#8217;s strength can be overcome.

Meg,

I think that you're definitely right in advocating a gradual approach, in fact, I believe that this approach will be essential no matter what we do. We need to work our way up gradually, utilizing the existing political and social machinery as best we can.

Something else you said about parents withdrawing children from failing schools and teachers eventually switching over is well considered also. Our best means of attacking the education issue might simply be to lend support to private schools to the point where we can demonstrate the quality and stability that they provide as opposed to the state-runs schools. If we can do that, the current public system could well be down-sized on its own. Scaling back various oppressive forms of taxation (property taxes, etc), will enable parents to have the money to invest in the private schools as well. In time, we might even be able to negotiate with the feds for some sort of federal tax relief for families in our state once we are able to sufficiently reform the education system and remove the "burden" from the federally-funded system.

This would put us in a strongly defensible position with the education lobby. If we can demonstrate that our system can educate children better than their system, then we've taken the wind out of their sails. We will have demonstrable results, not just a theory about "a better way." They'll still demagogue us, but we'd expect that anyway.

Something else you said about parents withdrawing children from failing schools and teachers eventually switching over is well considered also. Our best means of attacking the education issue might simply be to lend support to private schools to the point where we can demonstrate the quality and stability that they provide as opposed to the state-runs schools.

I have had some other thoughts on the school issue. For example, in addition to lending support and encouragement to the private schools, alterative schools and co-ops could be established. For parents who want to homeschool, but feel they need help with lesson plans, resources, and teaching strategies, homeschool resource centers could be opened. Parents would pay for the services they needed on an individual basis. Curriculum could be recycled much in the way colleges do with a book buy-back program. Tutoring for students and training for parents could be made available. Additional services might include science lab classes, arts and crafts, computer labs, and writerâ€™s workshops.

Now for those who either do not desire to homeschool or donâ€™t have the time or resources a teaching co-op might be a viable solution. This could be arranged area by area. A group of parents, a neighborhood, or a town could â€œbuyâ€ a teacherâ€™s services. A building would be secured either though lease agreement, donation, or some other financial arrangement and a teacher or teachers would be hired. If the entire expense were shared among enough parents it would likely be less expensive than a private school where parents are paying for the overhead of running an entire school.

I have no doubt that other alternative to public schools would arise given the opportunity.

Meg

Logged

"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support. And one certain proof that a goverment is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will." (Lysander Spooner, 1867)

I'm scratching my head at the Wyoming sales tax note: how can they offer an income tax credit for sales tax paid on food when Wyoming doesn't have a state income tax?

« Last Edit: October 24, 2002, 07:02:42 pm by Jason P. Sorens »

Logged

"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

I've created a spreadsheet of airports in each of the candidate states (or the ones still in serious consideration). It shows city, state, airport code, flights per week, # airlines, and # destinations. It also has calculation fields to show departures per day and departures per day per airline.

I only included a few major airports from Alaska, as there is a huge number of airports in AK, and I didn't feel like checking them all for commercial flights. Also, number of destinations will be distorted for AK, since there are so many in-state airports. (Assuming you are interested in this data for travelling out of state.)

I've uploaded it to my website as both Excel 2000 format and Excel 95 format for Joe.

This thread has gotten so long, I may have just missed it...but I haven't yet seen that much discussion of how much local residents from each state would welcome Porcupines. I know however that Joe seems to have found the ultimate place where they would: northern Maine. I've had his post about that on my mind for weeks now, so much so that it's poking holes in my Montanophilia. It's *so* important that we *not* be "invaders" or perceived as such. It's also important we go where we're needed. Northern Maine seems to be such a place. Imagine how much better our PR will be, and thus our chances for impacting the whole country, if locals are thrilled to have us there.

I have a friend from (I think) the northern part of Maine, and I think he might agree with you. I think the problem with Maine, though, is the size of the rest of the population, and what I percieve is a general satisfaction with the way things are.

I have become pretty much of a supporter of New Hamshire but it seems to me that N.H. is picked, that the movement could easily spread to Maine.

This coming from a Virginian whose only dealings with New Englanders comes from my friends who are current or former Navy.

I just came across some really neat data that we can use. These are income inequality figures by state derived from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS). Income inequality is important for us because more unequal states will have more class conflict and a larger underclass willing to vote for redistribution.

Accordingly, figures on income inequality by state are presented below. The first table presents the measure of income inequality "90/10" (the adjusted household income of the 90th percentile divided by the adjusted household income of the 10th percentile) for Waves III and IV. Wave III of the LIS contains data from the late 80s and early 90s. Wave IV contains data from the mid-90s.

The second table presents another measure of inequality, the Gini index, which is frequently used by economists. Unlike 90/10 Gini takes into account the income distribution across all percentiles, but it is more susceptible than 90/10 to measurement error. Finally, the third table presents a measure of inter-state income inequality, that is, median household income in the state divided by median household income in the whole country.

Table I

state

wave III

wave IV

Alaska

5.53

5.64

Delaware

3.71

4.92

Idaho

5.24

4.62

Maine

5.77

4.45

Montana

4.18

4.37

New Hampshire

4.29

4.72

North Dakota

5.27

4.02

South Dakota

5.51

4.61

Vermont

5.85

4.09

Wyoming

3.89

4.32

Table II

state

wave III

wave IV

Alaska

.335

.343

Delaware

.281

.310

Idaho

.317

.333

Maine

.337

.313

Montana

.303

.308

New Hampshire

.295

.333

North Dakota

.317

.309

South Dakota

.354

.323

Vermont

.318

.298

Wyoming

.275

.329

The results with the 90/10 ratio and the Gini index contradict each other frequently, both across states and between time periods. Idaho, for example, saw a decline in 90/10 but an increase in the Gini index.

Table III

state

wave III

wave IV

Alaska

1.06

1.26

Delaware

.96

1.13

Idaho

.88

.90

Maine

.88

.95

Montana

.85

.87

New Hampshire

1.32

1.17

North Dakota

.87

.94

South Dakota

.80

.99

Vermont

1.02

1.05

Wyoming

1.05

1.05

For purposes of comparison:In Wave III, the state with the lowest income inequality, by either measure, was Wisconsin (3.20/2.61).In Wave III, the state with the highest income inequality (90/10) was Kentucky (7.22). The state with the highest income inequality (Gini) was the District of Columbia (.405).In Wave IV, the state with the lowest income inequality (90/10) was North Dakota (4.02). The state with the lowest income inequality (Gini) was Vermont (.298).In Wave IV, the state with the highest income inequality, by either measure, was DC (8.88/.422).In Wave III, the state with the lowest income ratio was DC (.78). The state with the highest income ratio was New Hampshire (1.32).In Wave IV, the state with the lowest income ratio was Mississippi (.80). The state with the highest income ratio was Connecticut (1.32).

« Last Edit: November 20, 2002, 03:08:59 pm by Jason P. Sorens »

Logged

"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism